I just noticed something interesting in this article about Comcast. The plan I'm paying for (for internet) says I will get 12Mbps download. I'm actually getting 25Mb (or more, I've seen peaks over 50). Given what I'm actually getting, I can see now reason to pay for more service. This behavior gives them the ability to say "...many consumers choose to buy services with lower download speeds."

Makes me wonder if this is why I'm getting faster speeds than they're "required" to give according to the plan I'm purchasing. If I was consistently getting 12, I'd definitely be paying more to get faster service.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that way. I didn't get the "like us or else" message from reading the infographic. To me, it just looks like they're saying if you can't pay, those who contact us end up working something out, those who don't contact us, just don't pay and end up defaulting.

I've been a fortunate and happy Comcast customer, especially since I moved to my current residence. I get good (not as best as possible) internet speeds, very reliable service (almost no outages) and when needed, they comcast guy is usually available the next day, shows up on time and knows what he's talking about.

It's a great search engine, but I'm finding myself moving away from Google (albeit slowly) for this very reason. I've seen quite a few apps come and go (I was a big fan of Wave). Given how little faith we can have on the long term viability of a given app they come up with (google health anyone?) it's just to risky to start using something of theirs now.

Another conjecture (the first thing I thought of) is that people who make more are probably using broadband more (and/or higher speeds) and thus would see disconnect as being a more harsh penalty than those who might not use it as much.

I suspect this is taken a bit out of context, or maybe he just didn't make himself clear (or maybe he's a loon but happens to agree with my perspective a bit).

I agree that people (whether the "youth of today or my age or whatever) should know how to do some things on their own. You should know how to change a tire, put gas in your car (check youtube for the moronic people who just can't see to manage that) drive a nail in and hang a picture, etc.

You should have a basic understanding of how your computer/tv/DVD/etc. works vs. just where the power button is and how the UI works.

If your response to every question is lmgtfy, then you're probably spending a whole lot less time thinking critically than you should.

When you said "gee, how can we 'exclude' people?" I think what they're actually thinking is "gee, how can we 'monetize' people?" They don't want to exclude anyone (rather the opposite) they just want to find the way to make the most money per viewer as possible. Finding better/more convenient ways for viewers to consume content is not really part of their mindset, unfortunately.

I "bought" the free version of Shazam back when I had my first iPhone. When they started to monetize their success (good for them) they were able to take all their users who had purchased the app for free and essentially convert them to fully paid versions. I continued to get enjoy the app with all the new features they were now charging for. During an iPhone migration, I briefly lost access to the app (It didn't recognize my new phone) but when I contacted them, I was able to provide proof of purchase and they re-enabled my account immediately.

I don't see why Bravo couldn't do the same thing. Apple should make this a requirement (surprised it's not already) that app owners retain whatever access they had when they purchased the app, regardless what they paid for it.

While I think SZC was dumb suing the bar, how has this really backfired for them? Will they make fewer movies? Will people not go to see their movies? Are they having to pay someone as a result of this activity? Yeah, they got some bad press (from people who are aware of this at all) but what else?

BTW, serious question, not rhetoric. Has there actually been any repercussions to their actions?

A little googling indicates Chicago's not the only one. From what I've seen, this isn't a copyright thing. Chicago does it only in a limited fashion. They restrict sketching in certain galleries where they have an exhibit that's only going to be available for a short period. They have high traffic volume through that area, so they limit sketching to avoid having people standing around (interrupting the other people who are moving through).

I may not like the idea, but if that's the reason, it seems like a reasonable approach. Allow more people to see the exhibit at the cost of limiting the amount of time artists can spend sketching.

While this will get cleared up, what if she lost a job opportunity because "she" posted that she likes to suck dick on her facebook profile? What else should be involved to make this a felony. If she said she was going to blow something up or do something violent? What's the line between casual prank and something that's damaging to her and others?

If you illegally break into someone's account and then do stuff, it's a felony. Hey, I have an idea, don't do that.